Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis

ENLARGE

The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis, writes Henry Kissinger. Above, a pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July.
European Pressphoto Agency

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

Related Reading

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

More From Review

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

—
Dr. Kissinger
served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

This is another excellent, intellectually challenging analysis by Dr. Kissinger.

However, the failure to hold Richard Nixon accountable for his actions, accelerated the moral decline of the West with its valued, Rule of Law.

We would not have the problems created by Bush43 and Clinton, if Nixon had his day of accountability. Weakness became the chaos we see today in the U S Congress, for example. Putin, and others are sharks swimming amidst the overweight and undisciplined.

The
current mess in the world was designed by Dr. Kissinger and allies at coup
plotting Foundations in Washington.

Assemblies
of evils crafted 80 government overthrows since 1953. They are accountable for
millions of poor in this land and across the globe.

Dr.
Kissinger received Nobel Prize for Peace. If there was a Prize for Stupidity,
he and his pals must receive millions.

When one designs wars to steal assets
of other counties, as Israel has done so in the case of Palestine, then the
types of Dr. Kissinger, Senator John McCain, and warmonger Mrs. Clinton must
just shut up. They created the greatest number of foes for this decent nation.

Before WWII, the nations of Europe had engaged in centuries of nearly uninterrupted conflict. Improving technologies and increasing population and competition for limited resources resulted in the most terrible war in human history, WWII. After this, institutions like the UN were developed to prevent wars of aggression, and free market economic integration could create an interdependence that would deter conflict. The post-WWII Order was a bipolar world dominated in the West by USA and East by USSR, with the USA containing them until they collapsed under their own weight. The end of the Cold War began the New World Order that the first President Bush talked about, a uni-polar era in which the USA had emerged as the sole superpower, with the only military strong enough to deter any other potential rival from engaging in aggressive wars that could destabilize the global economy. The rise of China, etc. is creating the next World Order in which the old rules will be challenged.

Modern order is in crisis because our pyramid Ponzi scheme is finally hitting the lowest dupes and they're getting shafted. There was never going to be worldwide prosperity, y'hear? Our money itself is an interest-bearing debt created by privately held corporations (banks) in a circular Treasury financing scheme that has nothing to do with real growth or tangible wealth (land, materials or human resources). Take Tom. The bank creates $200 out of nothing to lend to him. He spends it into the economy but owes $220 back to the bank. Where does the extra $20 to pay the interest come from? It can only be created by someone else borrowing and spending their newly created money into the economy with interest also due. We're reaching the end of the line where the bottom tier is realizing that they've been duped and prosperity is impossible BECAUSE THE MONEY ITSELF IS AN INSTRUMENT OF EXTRACTION. Policies & politics will make no difference until the money is changed.

Just read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and see where Kissinger's philosophy falls into that book's hypothesis. New World Order theory is such a crock. The only way the entire world is placed under the control of a single governing body is through force, which can be done militarily or economically (or both). There is too much diversity among the world's regions to have everyone fall in line on a common ideal, unless you force them to. I'd rather support this diversity, but maintain focus on keeping my version somewhere at the top of the food chain. All these NWO clowns want is power. Plain and simple.

In his farewell address, George Washington made it clear that religious morality is an indispensable support of free government. By recognizing China, a communist country that does not believe in morality, Kissinger advocates a synthesis that finds in common, not morality, but immorality, and not free government, but a counterfeit of the original. Kissinger's thinly veiled words, do not hide his contempt for nation states, neither his support for regional government, which surely includes a supranational government over the United States. Economic prosperity is the fruit he dangles to tempt us all out of our sovereignty. He believes he is some sort of god over the less sophisticated inheritance who hold the title on "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." America signs away her inheritance to her own reproach.

" History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy" Henry Kissenger

Meanwhile Obama admits to having no strategy while parroting the american marxists and leftists that America exceptionalism and economic strength is the cause of the problems of the world. As Obama has lead our econiomic decline and geopolitical withdrawal over the last 6years, the reality is proving otherwise daily.

"A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory
governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with
agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But
progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of
intermediary stages."

My stomach turns at these words and their pregnant echoes of past tyrannies.

"The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization"

Henry, where is the evidence for this?? How has globalization brought prosperity? Yes, in the short-term the West gained by importing cheap goods from the Far East. But what the medium-long term effects??

1. A hollowing out of middle-class jobs/manufacturing base.

2. Depressed wages --> stagnant demand --> depression

3. A global systemic banking crisis which is bound to re-occur.

4. A concentration of power in the hands of multi-nationals and plutocrats.

If your idea of prosperity is a rise in inequality, depressed global demand and less accountability for our leaders then you must be out of touch with reality. It was under your watch Mr Kissinger that Milton Friedman was allowed to dictate terms to developing countries and free-market reform was pushed at the expense of stability and equality. That is the main reason the world has become such a divided and fractious place to live!

The Twenty First Century collides with the Eighth Century, only the Eighth Century is armed with Twenty First Century weaponry. An entirely new paradigm is needed to deal with this situation. Reality and History have passed Doctor Kissinger by.

What we need is a real President with real advisers and a real agenda. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a complete disaster. She has proven time and time again that she can't even control her own husband. How in heaven's name is she going to deal with one and a half billion violent, raging, deranged Muslims?

Not to offend or upset anyone but we need to worry about the U.S. Our infrastructure, schools and economy need more attention than the rest of the world, we issue debt to give aid to other nations, we bail everyone out but has any nation helped us in a crisis ( remember Katrina) ? We need to worry about the order of the U.S. before it's too late.

H.K is a very dry writer. I remember reading his book 40 years ago why it is OK to use tactical nuclear weapons and not the Big Ones - which H.K. believed made him an expert in Nuclear War.

The World Order established after WWII by America was specifically Christian - Keynesianism, Power Sharing, International Regulation, Humanitarian Pluralism - and it is those who have NOT believed in those Christian Democratic Principles who have risen to the top of world power today by subverting the operationalization of those principles who have destroyed it.

"..the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained..."

The belief in this concept sadly is already kaput because the twice-elected leader of our country, and the party he represents, do not themselves buy into it, and that is trickling down to what is now flood status in our culture. That has already led to the eradication of our positive influence in the world.

In the second to last paragraph Mr. Kissinger posses some great questions. However, I believe the most important question to ask is - what is in the best interest for our country? Once that is answered then the other questions should be considered. What we should avoid in this exercise of question answering is analysis paralysis. There are occasions when lengthy debates can have a deleterious effect allowing a problem to become far more difficult to overcome. The best way to have a viable vote in world affairs, thus influencing World Order to the extent that we can, is to have both a strong economy AND maintain an effective well trained military. One of the most important aspects of maintaining a strong country, in my opinion, is controlling our boarders.

@maya libretti Nah, the 10% interest is paid off by the to-be-provided labor of living and yet-to-be-born humans. Yes, you take this out of the equation and it's a Ponzi scheme. However, world population is still growing steadily so this model will continue to work for a long, long time.

@JEFFREY SHOWALTER All they want is surrender. A diverse group of people dialoguing over a social issue in a facilitated meeting is a... soviet. You cannot water down a principle, border, boundary, or property right without first fueling the machine of dialogue with diversity. [See Hegelian-Dialectic]

Mexican poet-diplomat and Nobel Prize winners Octavio Paz wrote that diversity is life, uniformity is death. It's true that we are never more the same than when we're dead. On a biological level, life thrives when different cells do different things, and when they also have healthy membranes through which nutrients are absorbed, wastes are eliminated, and which protect against pathogens. Similarly, on a social level, good fences make good neighbors. Healthy boundaries and borders are IMPORTANT. Globalism, or the desire for a NWO, is a disease. It's a siren song -- hypnotic, alluring, but ultimately death-dealing. Its "promise" is prosperity through growth -- but cancer also grows. And when the membranes are weakened, and the cells can no longer modulate inflow and outflow, nor shut the door against pathogens, the organism dies quickly. Kissinger bemoans the difficulty human society has with his preferred death march. I say thank goodness we still have the dynamic instinct to live. The more globalization succeeds, the more it will be resisted. The only way it will totally succeed is when we're all dead -- but I predict it will be increasingly challenged by resistance and conflagration before then. Instead of pushing a world order with the elimination of borders, it would be far better, and more fruitful, to encourage strong, healthy boundaries that facilitate transaction, and to advocate for the respect of all boundaries so that diversity can thrive. No more empire.

Mexican poet-diplomat and Nobel Prize winner Octavio Paz wrote that diversity is life, uniformity is death. The dynamism of living organisms depends on a wide variety of different cells that do different things. All those cells depend on healthy membranes for transmitting and absorbing nutrients, eliminating wastes, and protecting against pathogens. If we carry the analogy to human society we can see that LIFE depends on differences *and* healthy membranes -- i.e. good fences make good neighbors, and borders are IMPORTANT. Political identities, and the ability to control and transact across borders, modulating as needed, is part of our good health. And the extent that globalization seeks to break down that good health is the extent to which it will be resisted. Globalization is, at core, a siren song -- hypnotic and alluring, but actually death-dealing. The promise is prosperity via growth -- but cancer also grows. And if we do attain uniformity it will mean we're dead, as in an inert pile of mush with no more dynamism. We would do much better by embracing our diversity and respecting all our boundaries -- not breaking them down to allow pathogens in or cancers to grow.

@JEFFREY SHOWALTER G. Edward Griffin who wrote that book is a con man and you're a fool for taking him at his word. He propagates all kinds of garbage conspiracies like homeopathy, which is the quintessential classic of those who sell snake oil, both literally and ideologically.

@CJ Sousa It really sounds good but unfortuantely the agreed upon rules are always bent to favor special interests and people participating in chosing thier government are easily manipulated with media and indoctrination without education.

"The first people totalitarians destroy or silence are men of ideas and free minds." — Sir Isaiah Berlin

Indeed. The prosperity is a phantom, whipped up by the Ponzi scheme of our monetary system. Just ask yourself -- how can we be the wealthiest country in the world with humongous trade deficits, based on consumption, with almost no manufacturing or exports, and yet we have so much extra we can also police the world? Henry must still think the emperor is wearing clothes.

H.K created that paradox. I would like to ask H.K. what his corporation, Kissinger Associates, which links up American Corporations with Communist Chinese Leadership to gain their entry into Chinese manufacturing and international investment in China, has done to promote the return to the new world order he now says is in crisis.

Kissinger understands what the problem is - he is part of it. I have always believed that if Everyone does all right that I will do all right. But Everyone is NOT doing all right, and that seems to be the furthest thing from the minds of those who are Well-Off and in Power.

Average Americans working cheaper, harder, smarter, longer and more diligently in the current circumstance would have absolutely no impact. This is a problem of those in Power, how they perceive and manage the rest of US.

The first order of duty for the current Leaders is to solve the problems they have created themselves. NUMBER ONE is the corruption in the Western Banking System - which was also the cause of WWI and WWII (and likely WWIII).

@Ray Bernard Can we all give Ray and AMEN.........I agree 100%. Lets face it kids we are NOT a Super Power ...We had our bums kicked in the Near/Middle East. There isn't any nice way around...it may not have been as bad as our defeat in Indo-China but we sure didn't win a V-J day out of this........*(last war won ended in 1945)

Here here! Im glad youre not letting him off the hook! It was under his watch that Milton Friedman was allowed to run riot and impose his mad neoliberal ideas on unsuspecting countries often at the end of a gun. And still Kissinger advocates MORE globalisation as the solution to our problems!!

@Laura Laredo Dear Laura, Clearly how you judge a sitting President is different. I find one that has 3000 Americans killed by terrorist in two major cities a negative, then add to it a war he looses the collapse of the housing/banking/stock markets plus the highest rate of unemployed fellow Americans since early 1930's not a big plus. Mr. Bush Jr. is by far the worse we have had since Mr. Hoover. I agree Mr. Obama isn't Mr. Clinton he is closer to Mr. Bush Sr.

I would like to ask H.K. what his corporation, Kissinger
Associates, which links up American Corporations with Communist Chinese
Leadership to gain their entry into Chinese manufacturing and international
investment in China, has done to promote the return to the new world order he
now says is in crisis.

Have you read it? An interest in homeopathy has no bearing on his history of how the Federal Reserve got started. Carl Jung was interested in astrology, but it doesn't negate the rest of his opus either. Luckily now there are many books out that corroborate Griffith's story. Simon Johnson, chief economist of the IMF, Nomi Prins, former managing director at Goldman Sachs, and Alfred Stieglitz are among those who say the same thing. Just Creature from Jekyll Island was first.

Silenced men would include Prof. Edwin Borchard, Lindberg, Adm. JO Richardson, Genl. Joe Stillwell, Bobby Stuart and others who foresaw the failure of New Deal belief and plans for international "uniculturism" under the "irresistable" flag of "FDR's Four Feedoms" and the jihad of FDR's "unconditional surrender". Now look what we have" A bankrupt country in debt to its "enemies". And what we had: 2 evil empires in place of the nazis and now lately Neo naziism

Spot on. He must be either intellectually or morally bankrupt if he thinks MORE globalisation is the answer. I think he is likely to old to change his thinking and to cut off from the real world to understand the fundamental flaws in the globalised economy we live in today.

@Terry Chapman@Phil Weichert for the nuclear terrorism to materialize with the tacit support of ISIL-ISIS the friend of USA pakistan is being broken up and is disintegrating fast.Kissinger was given in 1969 in his first famous journey to china like a spy a safe passage back home via pakistan to china and vice-verse so he knows the truth .that is why he is talking of 9th Sept as the release of the book by which date it will be much clearer to the world where to go now. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is in danger of falling in the hands of Islamic terrorists like quadiri because of military [ Israel has to take a very quick decision of preemptive strikes even annoying OBAMA's USA because the first nuclear mayhem will be on Israel only in this century &the action of ISIL-IPAK will decide the course of new world order.] is preventing Nawaj and his police to not to shoot Quadiri but poor police also is beating the retreat like shah of Iran days getting good thrashing from terrorists in 79.

@James F Barry@Ray Bernard We control over 20% of the world's economy, nearly half the world's military spending, the highest median standard of living in the world aside from small oil & gas rich nations, and small tax havens were our rich stash their wealth...We steamrolled the armies of the world. The only reason we fail in these countries ultimately is because we opt for extended occupation and end up defending against an insurgency on the other side of the planet which is always a losing option.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.